Re: Hardware for Debian-68k
> > Can we back-port the sonic fix to 2.2? (ISTR it's been about moving device
> > start/stop calls around a bit; that should not depend on 2.6?)
>
> There's a fair amount of work in testing after backporting. I'd much
> rather put the effort into IOP ADB for 2.6 instead. Also, I have patches
> for other drivers that work better than 2.2, so I don't want to encourage
> use of the old kernel. Other than some recent nubus work, those patches
> can all be found in Christian's 2.6 kernel.
2.2 has many other problems as well (I recall the dreaded xargs list
corruption that broke a lot of builds on q650). I'm all with you in terms
of encouraging 2.6 use if it's possible. Short term, I'd just prefer to
have the 950 sonic work so the buildd can run more stably.
> Also, merging would be non-trivial, since the patch was rather large (only
> partly because 2.6 was so far behind 2.2) --
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=efcce839360fb3a7b6dedeacaec80f68b0f2d052
I see what you mean :-) There's a few obvious things like these:
- sonic_write(dev, SONIC_ISR,0x7fff);
- sonic_write(dev, SONIC_IMR,0);
+ SONIC_WRITE(SONIC_IMR, 0);
+ SONIC_WRITE(SONIC_ISR, 0x7fff);
and the transmit timeout handling, but the driver has been largely
rewritten. I'll have to look at it some more to see what might be used.
Seeing how 2.2 is largely more of a problem than a solution these days, I
won't give it high priority either.
Michael
Reply to: